Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs Pritam Kaur And Others on 26 September, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [1]
294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-7852-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.09.2024
Jaspal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Pritam Kaur Mann and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate and
Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.1
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for proforma respondents.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.11.2023 passed
by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application
filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC by respondent No.1/proposed
defendant namely Pritam Kaur for impleading her as a party to the Civil
Suit No.43473 of 2013, has been allowed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
in the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the
1 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [2]
effect that he was the exclusive owner in possession of House No.B-XX-
3252/2, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, measuring 1035 square yards
comprised in khasra No.249 in the revenue estate of Taraf Karabara,
Hadbast No.161, Tehsil West, District Ludhiana on the basis of two sale
deeds both dated 18.01.1989. It is submitted that other prayers were also
made in the said suit and no relief was sought against the respondent
No.1. It is further submitted that in the head note of the plaint, it has
specifically been mentioned that on the western side, there was house
which was built on plot No.31 and was belonging to respondent No.1 and
one Sant Kaur to the extent of 135 feet and that the dispute in the instant
case did not pertain to the said plot and was with respect to plot No.32
which was comprised in khasra No.249. It is submitted that the stand of
the plaintiff was that one Choor Singh, through his attorney Partap Singh,
had sold the suit property to the plaintiff (petitioner) by virtue of two sale
deeds and he had become owner by virtue of the same and that the Will
dated 07.12.1986 propounded by defendant No.2-Arjan Singh was a
fabricated document and even judgment and decree dated 11.02.1994
relied upon by the said Arjan Singh was also illegal, null and void and
not binding on the interest of the plaintiff.
3. It is further submitted that in the instant civil suit, written
statement had been filed and after framing of the issues, the entire
evidence of the plaintiff has been led and even the defence evidence has
been closed and it was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments
that the application dated 15.09.2023 was filed by respondent No.1 for
2 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [3]
being impleaded as a party. It is submitted that although, the said
application was opposed but however, by virtue of the impugned order
dated 09.11.2023, the same had been allowed and at the fag end of the
trial, respondent No.1 had been ordered to be impleaded as a party
(defendant). It is stated that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and
deserves to be set aside on several grounds.
4. The first ground which has been raised by learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner is that it is the petitioner-plaintiff who is the
dominus litis and he cannot be forced to make any person a party or to
contest the case against a person whom he does not wish to. The second
ground raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that no relief
was being claimed against Pritam Kaur Mann in the entire case and thus,
she is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The third ground raised by
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the case is at the fag end
and thus, allowing the said application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
would result in a de-novo trial and would delay the proceedings with
respect to the suit which had been instituted in the year 2012. The fourth
ground raised is for setting aside of the impugned order to the effect that
the trial Court had perversely observed that the plaintiff was in illegal
possession of some land which was under the ownership of respondent
No.1 by relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner. It is argued
that the said observation is perverse as a perusal of the report of the Local
Commissioner (Annexure P-5) would show that it was the case of the
plaintiff/petitioner that some encroachment had been made by the
3 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [4]
neighbourers on his land and it was nowhere observed in the said report
that it was the plaintiff who had occupied the land of respondent No.1. It
is further submitted that one civil suit (Annexure P-11) was filed by one
Amit Chadha in which Pritam Kaur Mann was defendant No.1 and
defendant Nos.12 to 15 in the present case were defendant Nos.4 to 7 in
the said suit and in the same, written statement was filed by said Pritam
Kaur Mann-respondent No.1 and a perusal of the said written statement
(Annexure P-12), more so para 1 on merits, would show that it was the
stand of respondent No.1 that she was the owner of the property in
question in the said suit but had further stated that the property was in
illegal possession of defendant Nos.4 to 7 and it was not her case that it
was the present plaintiff who was in illegal possession of any land owned
by her. It is submitted that although, not admitting but even assuming that
as per case of respondent No.1, if the plaintiff-petitioner was in
possession of some part of land owned by respondent No.1, then it was
for respondent No.1 to institute a suit for possession against him and
respondent No.1 who was claiming herself to be owner with respect to
khasra No.248, cannot be made a party in a suit which pertains to khasra
No.249. It is submitted that the application (Annexure P-8) had been
moved on 15.09.2023 whereas a perusal of the record would show that
respondent No.1 was well within her knowledge about the pendency of
the suit even prior to the said date. In this regard, reference has been
made to the application (Annexure P-10) which is the application for
discharge filed by the petitioner under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. in FIR
4 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [5]
No.25 dated 04.12.2014 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 448, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station NRI,
District Ludhiana by respondent No.1 and in the said application, specific
reference has been made to the fact that the present civil suit is pending
and thus, the present application has been filed only to delay the
proceedings. In support of his arguments, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case titled as Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and
others, reported as (2020)13 Supreme Court Cases 773.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 has opposed the present revision petition and has
submitted that the impugned order has been legally passed and the
present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. It is stated that a
perusal of the plaint would show that it had been pleaded by the
petitioner that he had not got the mutation entered in his favour in the
revenue record even after the execution of the sale deed and thus, the
name of Choor Singh continued to be reflected as owner thereof. It is
argued that since, the mutation has not been sanctioned in favour of the
petitioner, thus, the declaration sought in the instant suit cannot be
granted in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in fact, the
property which is owned by respondent No.1 in khasra No.248 has been
encroached upon by the plaintiff and other persons and the petitioner and
other persons were in illegal possession of the said property. It is
submitted that respondent No.1 is denying the right of the plaintiff over
5 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [6]
the property in question and thus, has a right to become a party.
6. This Court has heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and has
perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is illegal and
deserves to be set aside and the present revision petition being
meritorious, deserves to be allowed for the following reasons.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed civil
suit No.18 dated 13.01.2012 against 21 defendants in which several
prayers were made, out of which the primary prayers which were made
are reproduced as under:-
"Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the
exclusive owner in possession of House No.B-XX-3252/2,
Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, measuring 1035 sq. yards, which
has been shown as red in the site plan attached and bounded
as under:-
East: House No.3252/1, built on plot No.33 belonging to
Harpreet Singh and Harshmeet Singh, to the extent of 135'
West: House No.3252, built on Plot No.31, belonging to
Pritam Kaur and Sant Kaur, to the extent of 135'.
North: Road 30' wide, to the extent of 69'
South: House of Sohan Singh Anand and Remaining
property of Jaspal Singh, plaintiff, to the extent of 69'
comprised in Khasra No.249 Revenue Estate of Taraf
Karabara, Hadbast No.161, Tehsil West, District Ludhiana,
on the basis of two sale deeds dt.18.1.1989 and 18.1.1989,
registered at Wasika no.16913 dated 18.1.1989 and Wasika
no.16943 dated 19.1.1989, respectively;
Suit for declaration that Choor Singh son of Bhangah
6 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [7]
Singh remained alive uptill 31.3.2009 and that he was
survived by Dalip Singh Sidhu, Dr.Daljit Singh Sidhu, sons
and daughter Manjit Kaur Sidhu, defendants no.19 to 21
and not by alleged Santa Singh;
And
Suit for declaration that the alleged Will dated 07.12.1986
being propounded to have been executed by Choor Singh
s/o Shri Bhanga Singh is forged and fabricated document
and that it was never executed by Choor Singh s/o Bhanga
Singh, r/o 1, Coldstream Avenue, Singapore 459585 during
his life time in regard to the suit property in favour of any
person
And
Suit for declaration that alleged judgment and decree
dt.11.2.1994 obtained in Civil Suit No.312 of 1993, titled as
"Arjan Singh s/o Santa Singh" is null and void and also is
the result of fraud, impersonation and is not binding upon
the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever"
8. A perusal of the above prayer clause would show that the
plaintiff-petitioner was seeking exclusive ownership and possession of
house No.B-XX-3252/2 which was stated to be comprised in khasra
No.249 in District Ludhiana and the basis of the said claim were two sale
deeds both dated 18.01.1989. Other prayers had also been made in the
said suit which included seeking declaration with respect to sale deeds
subsequently executed by Arjan Singh-defendant No.2 and other
defendants. It could not be disputed that in the entire plaint, no relief was
sought against respondent No.1-Pritam Kaur Mann. The only reference to
Pritam Kaur Mann was coming in the description of the boundary while
7 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [8]
defining the house in question and while defining the said boundary and
it has been fairly stated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
that towards western side is house which is built on plot No.31 and
belongs to Pritam Kaur and Sant Kaur to the extent of 135 feet.
9. It would be relevant to note that as is apparent from the
application dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-8) filed by respondent No.1
under order 1 Rule 10 for becoming a party, respondent No.1 was
claiming ownership with respect to khasra No.248 and not with respect to
khasra No.249 regarding which the instant suit had been filed. The
dispute in the suit which had been filed by the plaintiff is with respect to
the ownership of the property which was initially owned by Choor Singh
and was bearing plot No.32 and the plaintiff was claiming the said
property by virtue of two sale deeds dated 18.01.1989 executed by Choor
Singh through his attorney Partap Singh, whereas the contesting
defendants in the said suit were claiming the said property through
alleged Will dated 07.12.1986 allegedly executed by Choor Singh in
favour of Arjan Singh and also on the basis of judgment and decree dated
11.02.1994 in favour of Arjan Singh in a suit filed by Arjan Singh against
one Santa Singh who was alleged to be the son of the said Choor Singh. It
is not disputed that respondent No.1 has nothing to do with the said
dispute as she is neither claiming property through Choor Singh nor is
there any document executed by Choor Singh in her favour. In the present
case, written statement was filed by the defendants, entire plaintiff
evidence was completed and the evidence of the defendants was also
8 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [9]
completed and the case was adjourned to 06.09.2023 for rebuttal
evidence and for final arguments. Zimni order dated 04.09.2023 in the
said regard is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Present: Sh.Stevon Soni, ld.counsel for respondent/plaintiff
Sh.Varinder Bhardwaj, ld.counsel for def.no.3
Sh.A.C.Gupta, ld.counsel for applicants/defno.12 to 15.
Defendants no.1,2 & 4 to 9, 11, 17 to 21 exparte.
Defendant no.10, 14 and 16 stated to be died.
Arguments heard. Vide my separate order of even date,
application moved by applicant/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule
17 CPC for amendment of written statement stands disposed
off/dismissed, as detailed therein. Now case stands
adjourned to 06.09.2023 for rebuttal evidence if any,
otherwise for final arguments.
Pronounced in open Court : (Nirmala Devi) PCS,
Date : 04.09.2023 Civil Judge (Jr.Division),
Ludhiana."
10. It is at that stage that respondent No.1 had moved an
application dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-8) for being impleaded as a
party and in the said application, it had been stated that the land
measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas was purchased by Sh. Nikka Singh vide sale
deed dated 28.03.1953 comprised in khasra No.248 and the said Pritam
Kaur Mann was granddaughter of Nikka Singh and Smt. Santo Kaur was
daughter-in-law of Nikka Singh and in their absence, plaintiff and other
defendants had illegally tresspassed into the land of respondent No.1 and
Santo Kaur which was comprised in khasra No.248. A detailed reply was
filed by the petitioner to the said application and it was stated that the
9 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [10]
said application was not maintainable as the case was of the year 2012
and was an old action plan case and was at the final stage, when the said
application was moved to delay the proceedings. It was stated that in case
such application is allowed then the same would amount to a de-novo
trial and it was also averred that no possession was being sought or
claimed in the present suit and only dispute in the instant suit was with
respect to title of the plaintiff in khasra No.249, being traced from Choor
Singh and the illegal mutations which had been got sanctioned by
defendant Nos.12 to 15 in their names in khasra No.249. It was further
stated that the plaintiff was not seeking any relief against respondent
No.1 and respondent No.1 had no right or interest in khasra No.249 as it
was her own case that she was owner of khasra No.248 and that in case, it
was the case of respondent No.1 that some other person was in illegal
possession of land owned by her then she could always file a separate suit
for possession. It was further averred that the initial demarcation report
which had been relied upon by respondent No.1 was set aside in appeal
by the Collector and it was further averred that respondent No.1 was
throughout aware about the suit which fact is apparent from the
application for discharge dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure P-10) filed by the
petitioner in FIR No.25 dated 04.12.2014 as well as the fact that the
demarcation application was being contested between the petitioner and
said Pritam Kaur Mann. It was further stated that there was no question of
respondent No.1 being made a party when relief was not sought against
her and at any rate, the decree would only bind the parties and thus, the
10 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [11]
application moved by respondent No.1 for becoming a party was mala
fide and was only meant to delay the proceedings. The trial Court vide
impugned order dated 09.11.2023 had illegally allowed the application
for impleadment by observing that as per the case of respondent No.1, the
petitioner-plaintiff and defendants had illegally possessed the property
owned by her and the said fact was apparent from the report of the Local
Commissioner. Reliance was also placed upon the previous suit for
injunction filed by the plaintiff against respondent No.1 which was
subsequently withdrawn and on the basis of the said observations, the
application for impleadment was allowed. The said order is illegal and
deserves to be set aside.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in the suit, no
relief is being claimed against respondent No.1. It is the petitioner who is
the plaintiff and who is the dominus litis and the petitioner cannot be
forced to add party against whom he does not wish to proceed, more so
when no relief is being claimed against the said person. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia (Supra) had clearly
held that the plaintiff cannot be forced to add party against whom he does
not wish to contest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai
International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre
and Hotels Private Limited and others, reported as (2010) 7 SCC 417,
had observed that merely the fact that a person is likely to secure a
right/interest in a suit property after the suit has been decided against the
plaintiff would not make such person a necessary party or a proper party
11 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [12]
to a suit for specific performance. It is thus, a matter of settled law that
being the dominus litis, it is the right of the plaintiff to institute the case
against the party against whom he wishes to contest and a person who is
neither a necessary nor a proper party and against whom no relief is being
claimed is not to be made a party. The lis in the present case was with
respect to the title of the land comprised in khasra No.249 and with
respect to the property which was owned by Choor Singh and various
parties were raising their claims to the same and the entire evidence of the
plaintiff and defendant has been led and the case was for rebuttal
evidence and final arguments when the application (Annexure P-8) was
filed and in case respondent No.1 is ordered to be impleaded as a party,
then the same would result in a de-novo trial and would adversely impact
the proceedings which were initiated way back in the year 2012.
Moreover, respondent No.1 was claiming rights with respect to khasra
No.248 and apparently, was raising a plea of some encroachment being
made and thus, in case respondent No.1 is impleaded as a party, then
completely different issues than the issues which have been framed in the
present case, would have to be adjudicated by the Court.
12. Reliance sought to be placed upon the report of the Local
Commissioner by the trial Court to state that the plaintiff is in illegal
possession is absolutely perverse inasmuch as a perusal of the report of
the Local Commissioner (Annexure P-5) would show that it has nowhere
been observed that the plaintiff was in illegal occupation or had
encroached upon the land of respondent No.1 and rather it had come in
12 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [13]
the said report that it was the plaintiff who had stated that there was some
encroachment by the neighbourers. Moreover, it would be relevant to
note that one Amit Chadha had filed a suit (Annexure P-11) against
respondent No.1-Pritam Kaur Mann and also against defendant No.12 to
15 in the present case who were shown as defendant Nos.4 to 7. The said
suit was with respect to specific performance of the agreement dated
01.06.2011 with respect to the property comprised in khasra No.248.
Relevant portion of the said suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Amit Chadha son of Shri Sudesh Pal Chadha r/o B-XX-
6395, Sunil Park Jassain Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.
Plaintiff
Versus
1. Pritam Kaur Mann do Ajit Singh s/o Nikka Singh, r/o
29, Harbourtown Crescent, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
L7A 2Y8.
2. Sant Kaur alias Santo Kaur widow of Late Shri Dhanjit
Singh alias Tanjit Singh s/o Nikka Singh, r/o 52 Jalan Bee
Eng Satu Taman Taynton View 56000 Cheras, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia:
(through their attorney Raj Singh Mann son of Niranjan
Singh, r/o Village Ghuman Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo
District Bathinda).
3. Raj Singh Mann son of Niranjan Singh, r/o Village
Ghuman Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo District Bathinda.
4. Satpal Arora son of Shri Harbans Lal
5. Smt. Nirmala Kumari wife of Satpal Arora
6. Madan Mohan son of Harbans Lal
7. Smt. Bimla Rani w/o Madan Mohan
All residents of H. No. 3252/A. Street No. 5. Gurdev Nagar,
13 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [14]
Ludhiana.
Suit for possession by way of specific performance of
the agreement dated 01.06.2011 of property measuring 1K-
13M. bearing Municipal No. B.XX.3252, Abadi Gudev
Nagar. comprised in Khasra No. 248, Khata No. 1244/1384
as per Jamabandi for the year 2005-06, situated at village
Taraf Karabara, Tehsil Ludhiana West, District Ludhiana,
as shown red in the site plan attached and bound as under:
East: Plot No. 3252/2, Khasra No. 249, belonging to Jaspal
Singh
West: Plot No. 3252/A, Khasra NO. 247, belonging to
Madan Mohan
North: Road 30' wide
South: House of O.P. Ghai
On payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.95,00,00/-."
13. A perusal of the same would show that in the said suit, it had
been specifically stated that towards the east was the plot belonging to the
present petitioner which was comprised in khasra No.249. In the said suit,
joint written statement had been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3
therein which included Pritam Kaur Mann (respondent No.1 in the
present case) and in para 1 of the said written statement on merits, it had
been stated that defendant Nos.4 to 7 therein i.e. defendant No.12 to 15
herein were in illegal possession of the property owned by respondent
No.1. Relevant portion of the said written statement is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"AMIT CHADHA
VERSUS
PRITAM KAUR MANN AND OTHERS
14 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [15]
In Re: Civil Suit
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
xxx xxx
On merits
1. That para No. 1 of the plaint is admitted to the extent
that defendants No 1 and 2 are the owners of the property
in suit, but it is absolutely wrong and the same is denied
that they represented that they are in possession of the
property in suit, as the property was already in illegal
possession of defendants No 4 to 7. It is also correct that
defendants No 1 and 2 appointed defendant No 3 as their
attorney, who entered into an agreement to sell dated
01.06.2011 with the plaintiff for the sale of the property in
suit for Rs 1,15,00,000/-. Terms and conditions of the
agreement is a matter of record, which are now of no
concern, as the agreement already stands, cancelled and
amount stands forfeited and true position has been explained
in the preliminary objections of this written statement, which
may be read as part of reply to this para as well."
14. It is, thus apparent that the observations made by the trial
Court to the effect that the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the suit
property, are not prima facie established. Even in case, the plea of
respondent No.1 to the effect that plaintiff and other defendants had
illegally tresspassed into the land of respondent No.1 comprised in khasra
No.248 was taken to be true on its face value, then also it is respondent
No.1, who had to file a separate suit for possession and cause of action
for the same would be completely different from the cause of action
15 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [16]
which is there in the present case. At any rate, respondent No.1 by
becoming a defendant in the present case would not be able to seek the
relief of possession and would only cause delay in the proceedings.
15. This Court is surprised that respondent No.1 has chosen to
become a party in the present suit instead of filing her own suit for
possession in spite of the fact that no relief is being sought against the
said respondent No.1 more so when it is settled law that a decree passed
in favour of the plaintiff in which a particular person is not a party would
not be binding on the said person. The application for impleadment is
completely misconceived and deserves to be outrightly rejected.
Reference to the earlier suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff against
respondent No.1 is also irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether
respondent No.1 is a necessary or proper party, to be impleaded in the
present case.
16. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has attempted to argue
that the suit of the plaintiff as has been filed, does not deserve to be
decreed. The said argument raised by learned counsel for respondent
No.1 is meritless and deserves to be rejected. At the stage of considering
an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, merits of the suit are not to be
taken into consideration and the trial Court would finally adjudicate the
suit on the basis of the pleadings and evidence before the Court.
Moreover, the question as to whether there was no mutation sanctioned in
favour of the plaintiff after the sale deeds had been executed in his favour
and as to whether the plaintiff could claim ownership on the basis of the
16 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:128331
CR-7852-2023 (O&M) [17]
sale deeds even without there being any mutation in this regard are all
issues which would be decided by the trial Court and the same does not
call for allowing an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by a
person against whom no relief is sought. Accordingly, the impugned
order being illegal deserves to be set aside.
17. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 09.11.2023
is set aside and the application filed by respondent No.1 for being
impleaded as a party is dismissed.
18. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
26.09.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
17 of 17
